Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Besides, some of them, why would they learn? They want to see the world burn.

And your point?

I think the best way to deal with these people is through individual effort, not through censorship or whatever. If people genuinely dislike the person's comments, they are free to ignore him. The offensive guy will get it one way or another.. if he chooses not to, it's his right. Nobody's obliged to listen to him anyway.

I assure you. The last thing you want to happen is political correctness superseding every right to self expression.

Individual effort? The problem isn't one guy saying something one guy doesn't like. The problem is dozens, hundred of guys saying stuff that thousands, tens of thousands feel strongly about - pro or con. Strongly enough to riot and burn cars. Strongly enough to beat some poor buggers to death because some idiot convinced them it was ok to kill gays, or Arabs, or some other minority group. Strongly enough to detonate homemade explosives in crowded subways.

I don't know about you, but in my country, those problems are a lot more pressing than "political correctness". "Political correctness" is some straw man our politicians like to bandy about once in a while, but here, it has precious little bite.

No, and that's precisely the point of Freedom of Speech: to protect those who say unpleasant, not necessarily true things from the thugs who would silence them. Even if the speakers are assholes and the thugs have consensual opinions. (Yeah, I don't care if the guy you're punching is racist: if you use violence just because he said something you don't like, you're a thug.) When you think of Freedom of Speech, please don't think of heroic martyrs speaking up for a cause you're sympathetic to. Think of the guys you'd really rather would shut up.

That's why we have Ipod.

You don't have to listen to them at all. However, if their volume surpasses your ipod's, you will have every right to shut them up, legally

Individual effort? The problem isn't one guy saying something one guy doesn't like. The problem is dozens, hundred of guys saying stuff that thousands, tens of thousands feel strongly about - pro or con. Strongly enough to riot and burn cars. Strongly enough to beat some poor buggers to death because some idiot convinced them it was ok to kill gays, or Arabs, or some other minority group. Strongly enough to detonate homemade explosives in crowded subways.

I don't know about you, but in my country, those problems are a lot more pressing than "political correctness". "Political correctness" is some straw man our politicians like to bandy about once in a while, but here, it has precious little bite.

But you do not have the right to think for them. If they go apeshit because of some guy with a really good tongue, it's their problem. They are the ones looking like tools, not you. However, it's a different matter if property is vandalized. That needs an entirely new discussion.

In my opinion, hate speech is much more devastating than yelling fire in a theater. Worst that happens if everyone gets freaked out and waste everyone's (including firefighters) time and money, but nobody is hurt. Money can always be repaid, lives cannot.

When hate speech tells people certain lives are worthless, people might actually believe that and act on that. If someone wants to make fun, people can walk away. It may not be the most fair in all cases, but it is in most cases. That's my opinion anyways.

In my opinion, hate speech is much more devastating than yelling fire in a theater. Worst that happens if everyone gets freaked out and waste everyone's (including firefighters) time and money, but nobody is hurt. Money can always be repaid, lives cannot.

And since some societies are so soft they can't even take an insult...

You don't have to listen to them at all. However, if their volume surpasses your ipod's, you will have every right to shut them up, legally

The problem isn't them saying something I don't want to hear. I can, indeed, just ignore them. The problem is them saying something my neighbors like a little too much.

The issue of Freedom of Speech is not reduced to the unpleasantness of hearing contrary opinions. Ideas move men. That's what make speech such a powerful tool, and thus a dangerous one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thingle

But you do not have the right to think for them. If they go apeshit because of some guy with a really good tongue, it's their problem. They are the ones looking like tools, not you. However, it's a different matter if property is vandalized. That needs an entirely new discussion.

In my opinion, hate speech is much more devastating than yelling fire in a theater. Worst that happens if everyone gets freaked out and waste everyone's (including firefighters) time and money, but nobody is hurt. Money can always be repaid, lives cannot.

The way I see it is, every action has consequences. There's nothing in the (US) constitution that forbids anyone to kill. You'll just have to suffer the consequences. Go ahead with your freedom of expression or whatever, but you'll be the judge whether or not you want to accept the consequences.

Sure. It's your subway, and they blew it up. Therefore problem the action of blowing up the subway and prosecute the bombers for it, and for the people they killed.

Using this as an excuse to shut certain people up when you don't need to even listen to a single word from them is laughable. Remember, words don't blow trains up, bombers with bombs do.

Bad guys were punished. How very comforting for those who lost loved ones. The point of censorship, there, would be for people to not get inflamed and become terrorists in the first place. Stopping a crime before it happens, before someone even has the idea to commit it, is much preferable to just hoping you can catch the culprits afterwards and throw them in jail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KholdStare

The way I see it is, every action has consequences. There's nothing in the (US) constitution that forbids anyone to kill. You'll just have to suffer the consequences. Go ahead with your freedom of expression or whatever, but you'll be the judge whether or not you want to accept the consequences.

So what if every action has consequences? What does that have to do with anything? Would you promote anarchy because, hey, if people kill each other, they just have to accept the consequences?

We craft laws to reach a balance between liberty and safety. (And yes, I do know the quote about those who trade one for the other, but let's face it: anarchy is idiotic.) Where is that balance, where freedom of expression is concerned? Do you want, on a matter of principle, dismiss the consequences of a greater freedom of speech with an airy "eh, it's a matter of personal responsibility"? "Human lives don't matter compared to the freedom of spreading hate"?

Note, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that freedom of speech should be absolute. But that's a decision that should be arrived at after careful consideration of the dangers involved, not after denying the role of free speech in the growth of radical, violent ideologies.

I find offering censorship as a solution quite shortsighted. Sure speech is a powerful tool that can be used in extent that it becomes a lethal weapon but it's still one of the fundamental foundations of democracy. Censorship is an extremely dangerous path to be treading on, as it grants the power even absolute power to control what ideals can be put through to the masses. That holds a temptation that very few will be strong enough to oppose. Assuming that they even wish to.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I've yet to see a single example where censorship wouldn't have been used to further the causes of those in power.

When the voice of opposition is suppressed the result is dictatorship, oligarchy or some other form of government not so pleasant for those who disagree with it's views. And even if the censorship is controlled by the majority where does that leave the minorities.

I think it'd be foolish to think that you could find someone who could objectively base the decisions concerning censorship on morality alone. Personal or popular agendas will come to play. I believe it to be inevitable. So regardless the fact that freedom of speech causes problems, I find the alternative far more frightening.

Bad guys were punished. How very comforting for those who lost loved ones. The point of censorship, there, would be for people to not get inflamed and become terrorists in the first place. Stopping a crime before it happens, before someone even has the idea to commit it, is much preferable to just hoping you can catch the culprits afterwards and throw them in jail.

So what if every action has consequences? What does that have to do with anything? Would you promote anarchy because, hey, if people kill each other, they just have to accept the consequences?

We craft laws to reach a balance between liberty and safety. (And yes, I do know the quote about those who trade one for the other, but let's face it: anarchy is idiotic.) Where is that balance, where freedom of expression is concerned? Do you want, on a matter of principle, dismiss the consequences of a greater freedom of speech with an airy "eh, it's a matter of personal responsibility"? "Human lives don't matter compared to the freedom of spreading hate"?

Note, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that freedom of speech should be absolute. But that's a decision that should be arrived at after careful consideration of the dangers involved, not after denying the role of free speech in the growth of radical, violent ideologies.

No. What you want is people to impose laws to stop the people who oppose their viewpoint under the guise of public safety. Dictators take advantage of that. Basically, your argument is we must stop these people at all costs, even if we violate certain constitutional rights in the process. That's exactly what I don't like... The use of legislation to impose on people.

Now I have a question:
1. Did all people who read Mein Kampf become little Hitlers? Because if not then the problem is not Hitler, but the idiot who read him.

The problem isn't them saying something I don't want to hear. I can, indeed, just ignore them. The problem is them saying something my neighbors like a little too much.

The issue of Freedom of Speech is not reduced to the unpleasantness of hearing contrary opinions. Ideas move men. That's what make speech such a powerful tool, and thus a dangerous one.

I don't see how that is a problem.

Case 1: If you happen to live in a neighbor where the others are as dumb as apes, you should move elsewhere. With such condition, even if nothing provokes them, sh** will happen.

Case 2: you happen to live in a place where everyone else thinks differently than you do. You should either move somewhere else or adapt.

Case 3: you live in a place where the government and the economy are messed up. In other words, the people must live in rubbish which in turn emits CH4, and a single spark could cause the whole thing to explode. This is inevitable. Again, you would better move elsewhere or join the revolution.

Case 4: you live in a place where the economy is next to non-existence but the government puts everything under its iron heels effectively. Now this is paradise! No one has the right to say anything....

Case 5: you live a place where the economy is at its apex. Jobs are plentiful, incomes are desirable by other nations, the overall quality of life is high and your government doesn't mess up with others. In this condition, I don't think there would be enough carebears to pose a threat to the society.

........

The bottom line is if a random speech can seriously cause trouble for a community, then that community has tons of other problems and it can be safely inferred that the mentioned speech is just a direct consequence.

So what if every action has consequences? What does that have to do with anything? Would you promote anarchy because, hey, if people kill each other, they just have to accept the consequences?

But that is how reality right now. We have enough common sense that is why we do not choose anarchy. The consequences of killing someone is so huge that not enough people kill each other for society to become anarchy. It's all checks and balances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

We craft laws to reach a balance between liberty and safety. (And yes, I do know the quote about those who trade one for the other, but let's face it: anarchy is idiotic.) Where is that balance, where freedom of expression is concerned? Do you want, on a matter of principle, dismiss the consequences of a greater freedom of speech with an airy "eh, it's a matter of personal responsibility"? "Human lives don't matter compared to the freedom of spreading hate"?

We do, and the laws never forbid, at least not in my constitution. The commandments say thou must not, while the laws say if p then q. If you don't want q to happen to you then for the love of God (other spiritual beings, etc...), don't do p. Back to the freedom of expression thing, all we have to do is make the consequences unfavorable enough for people to rethink some actions.

In summary: Yes to absolute freedom, but it's we who must decide if the consequences are worth it instead of some laws restricting us to express them.

Yes, speech can be a powerful and dangerous tool in the wrong hands. That's why it's important for others to also speak up to counter those who would use it for ill. Sure there will always be people who abuse freedoms, and those people should be punished. However, that doesn't mean others should have their freedoms restricted to stop those who would abuse them from causing harm.

It's up to the rest of us to make sure that those with hateful views are marginalized as much as possible. However, I think they should still have the right to express those views. When someone acts on those views, then punish them. When they try to spread their views, expose them for what they really are. Simply forbidding someone from expressing such views isn't going to change their mind about it. It'll just drive them underground. They'll still find an audience, but even if it's smaller, that audience won't be exposed to opposing viewpoints as often and may become more radicalized.